AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs AMD Radeon RX 550X Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX 550X vs AMD Radeon R9 M375

The benchmark data splits these two legacy mobile GPUs evenly: the RX 550X wins the modern Vulkan workload by 16.7%, while the R9 M375 takes the OpenCL test by 7.6%. Neither card dominates outright, and their average benchmark scores sit only 4.1% apart (10481 vs 10070), placing both near the 48th–49th percentile of all GPUs. The choice between them hinges on which API generation matters more for your target workloads, not on raw overall speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most decisive result is the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the RX 550X scores 11299 against the R9 M375’s 9682 — a 16.7% advantage. This is a substantial lead and reflects the RX 550X’s architectural maturity: it runs GCN 4.0 on a 14nm process, while the R9 M375 is built on GCN 1.0 at 28nm. Vulkan 1.3 support on the RX 550X versus 1.2.170 on the R9 M375 further explains why the newer card pulls ahead in this API. The RX 550X’s Vulkan score also exceeds its own OpenCL result by 16.9%, indicating the architecture scales better with low-level APIs.

Conversely, in Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M375 posts 10457 versus the RX 550X’s 9662 — a 7.6% win for the older card. This reversal is notable because the R9 M375 has 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, compared to 512 shading units and 32 TMUs on the RX 550X. Even though the RX 550X runs at higher clocks (1100 MHz base / 1183 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz base / 1015 MHz boost), the R9 M375’s extra 128 shaders and 8 TMUs deliver more raw compute throughput in this test. The R9 M375’s FP32 rating of 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS on the RX 550X confirms this — the older chip is 7.2% faster in pure floating-point math.

However, the RX 550X counters with dramatically better memory bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s on the R9 M375. That 3.33x bandwidth advantage comes from GDDR5 running at 6 Gbps effective versus DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective. The RX 550X also has twice the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), which helps in texture-heavy scenes. Pixel rate favors the RX 550X at 18.93 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors the R9 M375 at 40.60 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s. So the two cards trade blows at nearly every sub-benchmark level, and the overall average scores reflect that: 10481 for the RX 550X, 10070 for the R9 M375.

Looking at nearest rivals, the RX 550X’s average score sits 0.8% above the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and 1.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, but 1% below the AMD Radeon R9 M275X and 1.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 6600S. The R9 M375’s average is 0.3% above the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, while sitting 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M and 2% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A. These tight deltas confirm both cards are mid-pack performers in their respective eras.

The Verdict

From the data, the RX 550X is the better pick for anyone running Vulkan-based workloads or modern game engines that leverage low-level APIs. Its 16.7% Vulkan lead is decisive, and its superior memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s) plus double the VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB) make it more future-proof for texture-heavy content. The RX 550X also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the R9 M375’s DirectX 12 (11_1), which matters for titles using newer feature levels.

The R9 M375 is the pick if your primary workload is OpenCL compute that relies on raw shader throughput. Its 7.6% OpenCL win and 7.2% FP32 advantage mean it will outperform the RX 550X in compute-heavy tasks that don’t depend on memory bandwidth. However, the R9 M375’s DDR3 memory at 28.80 GB/s is a severe bottleneck for any memory-intensive rendering, and its 2 GB capacity will limit texture detail at higher resolutions.

For overall balanced use, the RX 550X’s higher average benchmark score (10481 vs 10070) and better API support give it the edge. The R9 M375’s only clear wins are in OpenCL and raw texture rate, but those don’t compensate for the Vulkan deficit and the memory bandwidth chasm. The RX 550X also comes from a newer generation (Polaris RX 500X vs Gem System R9 M300), which explains its 14nm process versus 28nm and its higher transistor density (21.4M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²).

Where Each One Wins

The RX 550X wins in Vulkan rendering, memory-bound scenarios, and modern API compatibility. Its 16.7% Vulkan advantage over the R9 M375 makes it the clear choice for games or applications that use Vulkan. The 96.00 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB GDDR5 memory mean it can handle larger textures and higher resolutions without stuttering, whereas the R9 M375’s 28.80 GB/s DDR3 will choke on data-heavy scenes. The RX 550X also supports newer display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) versus none listed for the R9 M375, and it has a lower TDP of 50W versus no TDP listed for the older card.

The R9 M375 wins in OpenCL compute, raw shader throughput, and texture fill rate. Its 640 shading units and 40 TMUs give it a 25% and 25% advantage over the RX 550X’s 512 and 32, respectively. The 7.6% OpenCL lead and 7.2% FP32 edge mean compute workloads like physics simulations or video encoding that use OpenCL will finish faster on the R9 M375. Its texture rate of 40.60 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s also helps in games that are texture-fill-bound, though the memory bandwidth limitation will offset this in practice.

For pixel fill rate, the RX 550X wins at 18.93 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s — a 16.6% advantage that matters for fill-rate-bound scenes at high resolutions. The R9 M375’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the RX 550X’s PCIe 3.0 x8 may reduce data transfer bottlenecks on the older card, but the RX 550X’s superior memory system compensates.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X averages 10481, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 averages 10070 — a 4.1% difference in favor of the RX 550X.

Q: Why does the R9 M375 win in OpenCL despite being older?

A: The R9 M375 has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs versus 512 and 32 on the RX 550X, giving it more raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rating of 1,299.2 GFLOPS exceeds the RX 550X’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS by 7.2%, which translates to a 7.6% OpenCL victory.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RX 550X scores 11299 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 9682 for the R9 M375 — a 16.7% lead for the RX 550X. This is the largest single-benchmark delta between the two cards.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 550X has 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, while the R9 M375 has 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective. That’s a 3.33x bandwidth advantage for the RX 550X.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The RX 550X also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 on the R9 M375.

Q: Which card has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The RX 550X uses a 14nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M375 uses a 28nm process from TSMC. The RX 550X also has a smaller die size (103 mm² vs 123 mm²) despite more transistors (2,200 million vs 1,500 million).

Architecture Differences

The RX 550X is built on GCN 4.0 architecture using the Lexa chip, fabricated on GlobalFoundries’ 14nm process. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The R9 M375 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 28nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.2M per mm².

The RX 550X features 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a 128-bit memory bus connected to 4 GB of GDDR5. Its memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, also on a 128-bit bus but with 2 GB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding just 28.80 GB/s.

API support differs significantly: the RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 550X also has a lower TDP at 50W compared to no TDP listed for the R9 M375, and it offers dual-slot cooling with no power connectors required, alongside display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in almost every measurable specification except ROP count (16 each) and bus width (128-bit each). The RX 550X has a base clock of 1100 MHz and boost of 1183 MHz, versus 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost on the R9 M375. Memory type and speed diverge sharply: GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Capacity differs at 4 GB versus 2 GB, and bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

The RX 550X has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 18.93 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, while texture rates are 37.86 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,211.4 GFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS. The RX 550X has FP16 at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the R9 M375 lists no FP16 capability. Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 on the RX 550X versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the R9 M375. The RX 550X is a dual-slot card at 145 mm (5.7 inches) long with no power connectors and a 250W suggested PSU, while the R9 M375 has no listed dimensions, slot width, power connectors, or PSU requirement. Release dates are 2018-12-15 for the RX 550X versus 2015-05-04 for the R9 M375.